Teardrops n Tiny Travel Trailers

I've spent quite a bit of time plundering around this site. I have seen every shape and form of tiny trailers. Tears, square tears and everything from squidgets to midgets. Grasshoppers and such. Question is....
Are the non tear shaped such as grasshoppers...square tears ect. still considered teardrops? I am asking for a reason.....I kinda like the grasshopper body style and was wondering if I built one would I be ostracisied for being different?????????????????????

So tell me, how do you define a teardrop?

Is it the shape?

Is it the size?

Is it the galley?

So you say you like grasshoppers... I think that's wonderful. We haven't seen a new grasshopper built since Buford built his last year.

I believe that any teardrop gathering you go to with a grasshopper, you will be welcomed with open arms...

Do you care what it's called, as long as you can go camping and have fun?

Mike...

Thanks Mike
You just made my wife's day.............................................

wentzzee wrote:Thanks Mike
You just made my wife's day........................

If you can't stand in it, it's a teardrop. If it's shaped like a Grasshopper, it's just not a traditional teardrop but it's still considered a teardrop. Some people here on the left coast get real sticky about what a teardrop is and still let a grasshopper 'style' teardrop in Teardrop 'only' gatherings.

Enjoy what you build and have a good day.

wentzzee wrote:Thanks Mike
You just made my wife's day.............................................

My wife liked the grasshopper best of all the designs I showed her. But since she's not much of a camper, I built what I wanted. I do like the grasshopper, but I'm building the generic Benroy. I'm not saying one is better than the other, it's just the one I like. Jim

Hi Wentzzee,

I'm hesitant to even chime in on this thread. See, I'm in the process of building a grasshopper (the DesertDawg). To purists, its angular shape precludes it from being a teardrop. That's OK with me because I think it's *wonderful* that the teardrop tradition is being proudly carried forward in this new century. That said, I had a number of reasons that I wanted to build a grasshopper so that's what I decided on. I do try to be very careful about how I refer to it when talking with people.

One thing I just love about this group is the support and encouragement for all kinds of variations on the small camping trailer theme.

Your final question has been bothering me a bit too. I would really like to attend a gathering at some point but am concerned about a negative reaction to my trailer.

Joanne

wentzzee wrote:I've spent quite a bit of time plundering around this site. I have seen every shape and form of tiny trailers. Tears, square tears and everything from squidgets to midgets. Grasshoppers and such. Question is....
Are the non tear shaped such as grasshoppers...square tears ect. still considered teardrops? I am asking for a reason.....I kinda like the grasshopper body style and was wondering if I built one would I be ostracisied for being different?????????????????????

Curves are coooool. who ever saw a square raindrop? a square tear? a square bubble? A square rainbow?


circles are the most efficient shape.

Ma3tt wrote:circles are the most efficient shape.

Most efficient for what??? Square teardrop is far more efficient for space and storage!

In the 40's aerodynamics was important. Teardrops were rounded to improve the aerodynamics and improve gas milage.

But square profiles are better for packaging all the things you want in a teardrop.

So what is the best compromise? A square teardrop with some rounded corners. The Benroy is a good example of that. So is the Scad-A-Bout!

Another thing you can do is start with a standard 4x8 box, and package all your stuff in that... then extend the length of the front and make it curved. Also extend the length of the rear, and make is sloped. Sounds like the best of both worlds!

Mike...

Joanne..
In response to your response immeadiately after posting this I went and posted the same ouestion on the tearjerkers group [would a grasshopper be welcome]

The answers I got were pretty much unamious............YES a grasshopper would be welcomed. At least on the East coast.No westerners responded at this time. Mostly it was stated it wasn't the shape of your trailer but getting together and having a good time.

I like the looks better of a tradinational teardrop but other half likes the grasshopper. And ya'll know if momma aint happy no one is. So I guess my happy medium is a grasshopper first then a teardrop second.

I appreciate all the responses....................Wifey suggested do a Grasshopper and paint the silouette of a teardrop then the rest sky blue so it would blend in with the sky.. She said it would look kinda cosmic and given just a quick glance no one would notice.............

For myself, how different teardrop people are gonna react to my trailer was the absolute LAST thing on my mind when I was deciding how to do my tiny trailer. If they were going to be the ones camping in it - I'd care. Since I'm the one camping in it - I care about my opinion.

My advice: Build what YOU want (with the obvious limitation that the spouse has to like it too). If we were all that concerned with what others thought of our trailers, we'd be just buying the same ole trailers everybody else is buying.

Same basic rule applies in life generally I'd suggest. I L_O_N_G ago stopped worrying about seeking the approval of others for what I enjoy doing. I still enjoy showing stuff off - but I don't give a darn if they don't approve.

I have a wierd little trailer. I like the convenience and ease of towing and setting up. When we're camping we're surrounded by people in trailers bigger than my first apartment. They don't get why I'd want the little trailer and I don't get why they need a monster.

I ride a small 250cc motorcycle. I like the efficiency and easy control. Most folks are riding 1100+ bikes. I've had two different CARS with engines about that size. I don't understand why anybody would want or need a 700+ pound bike with a bigger engine than most small cars (or the equal of some minivans). They don't understand why I DON'T want it. Fine by me.

Mike

Endo wrote:

Ma3tt wrote:circles are the most efficient shape.

Most efficient for what??? Square teardrop is far more efficient for space and storage!

For over volume in a space the sphere is actually the most space effieicent. It holds the most volume for the least amount of surface area. The problem with that is, we and the things we store aren't liquid so we can't take full advantage of this property.

Hi Asian

I have just checked a textbook on thermodynamics (for reefer design) and it states that the lowest external surface area per given volume is a cube and that circular is the worst. ie their point was keep the fridge cube shaped for lowest surface area which in turn means less cold escape area

Now I have to go and find out which is right

BRB

George

Hi again

This site says Spheres have smallest surface area for given volume

http://www.wsu.edu/~gmhyde/433_web_pages/dimensions-units.htm

http://www.vendian.org/envelope/TemporaryURL/sphere.html


Hmm seems the thermodynamics text book is wrong, for a given volume the sphere as the lowest surface area.

As far as fridges go I dont think spherical would work unless all products were packeged like a bag of frozen pea's, all the outside curvature would be lost, their stated reason for sticking to cuboid form is flawed though.

Every day I learn a little more